It’s true that Tom Friedman never has to say he is sorry and he can get an interview with the president almost as easily as he can with his cab driver. You can almost say the same for David Brooks. Although I’m not sure that the key to being a Very Serious Person is that you’re coated in teflon that protects you from the natural consequences of being an opinion writer who is frequently, catastrophically, wrong.
I think the key is that you get to define what’s not serious.
May I confess an unpopular opinion? Recently I haven’t found Friedman all that awful. I know all about the wisdom-spouting cabbies and “Suck on this,” but Friedman thinks the GOP is crazy (primarily for blocking infrastructure projects and efforts to deal with climate change) and he’s noticeably less awful on foreign policy than he was in the run-up to the Iraq War. Hate him for the caveats in today’s column, but note that he’s basically supportive of the Iran deal. If your dad liked The World Is Flat, I’m guessing he’ll find that more persuasive than, say, Rachel Maddow’s support for the deal, so I’ll take it.
Couldn’t bear to read it, alas. Heard the end of a discussion on Diane Rehm NPR yesterday – did anyone else hear this?. I found it horrifying – wise ones sitting around sagely agreeing with the one discussant I heard. said nuclear weapons have never been used [huh?] [hence deterrence works] and contrasting the great powers w. nuclear weapons [USA, Russia, China] with the rogue nations that” want them” like N Korea [huh?]; but Iran may upset the applecart. no one pointed out that they seemed not to notice a few nations that have nuclear weapons and are not USA, Russia or China. unreality of entire discussion I found frightening.